4.2 Article

A history of sexual, emotional, or physical abuse predicts adjustment during opioid maintenance treatment

Journal

JOURNAL OF SUBSTANCE ABUSE TREATMENT
Volume 34, Issue 2, Pages 208-214

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jsat.2007.03.009

Keywords

sexual abuse; emotional abuse; physical abuse; opioid treatment; adult; latent growth model; addiction severity index; methadone; buprenorphine/naloxone

Funding

  1. NIDA NIH HHS [R01 DA11160] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NATIONAL INSTITUTE ON DRUG ABUSE [R01DA011160] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study examined how having a history of sexual, physical, or emotional abuse is related to overall functioning as assessed by the Addiction Severity Index during short-term opioid maintenance treatment with either buprenorphine/naloxone or methadone. Furthermore, the relation between abuse history and overall functioning by sex was explored. Participants (N = 268) were opioid-dependent adults entering an outpatient randomized clinical trial with buprenorphine/naloxone and methadone. Latent growth modeling indicated that females with an abuse history entered treatment with more problems in the psychiatric and family domains as compared with females without an abuse history. Over the course of treatment, a history of abuse predicted problems in the psychiatric and alcohol domains. Furthermore, a history of abuse predicted slower recovery times and less recovery overall for females in some domains. Males with an abuse history entered treatment with more severe psychiatric and family problems as compared with males with no history of abuse. Victims of abuse may present to substance abuse treatment with weaknesses in the areas of family relations, psychiatric status, and alcohol use. The nature of these problems and their trajectory over time differed by sex. (C) 2008 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available